Administrative Petition (Jerusalem) 34637-03-23 Kinneret Cohen v. State of Israel – Israel Prison Service

Decision

The matter of the petition in question is a claim for monetary relief arising out of the employment relationship that existed between the Petitioner, who was formerly a prison guard in the Prison Service, and the Respondent, who was her employer and who, according to section 129(a) of the Prisons Ordinance (New Version), 5732-1971 (hereinafter - the Prisons Ordinance), were excluded from the scope of the Labor Court's jurisdiction under section 24 of the Labor Court Law.  5729-1969 (hereinafter - the Labor Court Law) (similar to the provision regarding police officers set forth in section 93A of the Police Ordinance (New Version), 5731-1971 (hereinafter - the Police Ordinance)).

Indeed, the authority to hear the grounds in respect of which the petition was filed is vested in the Court for Administrative Affairs (in the matter of prison guards - according to Item 37(2) of the First Addendum to the Courts for Administrative Affairs, 5760-2000 (hereinafter - the Courts for Administrative Affairs Law) and in the matter of police officers - according to Item 37(1) of this Addendum).  However, however, the authority of this court was limited only to hearing the Authority's decision itself (section 5(1) of this Law), as opposed to the granting of monetary relief, which cannot be appealed for in the framework of an administrative petition.

Therefore, after reviewing the petition in question, the Petitioner is required to amend it, to redefine the requested remedies and to delete the requested financial remedies.  All of this as will be clarified below.

2. The Petitioner was employed as a prison guard in the Israel Prison Service for about fourteen years, until her resignation in January 2022. In May 2022, the Petitioner filed a lawsuit against the Respondent in the Jerusalem Regional Labor Court (Labor Dispute 35234-05-22 [Published in Nevo] (hereinafter - The Claim in the Labor Court), in the framework of which she petitioned for payment of various sums regarding rights which, according to her claims, derive from the period of her employment in the Prison Service and the termination of her employment.  The Respondent filed a statement of defense and at the same time filed a motion to dismiss the claim in limine, which was mainly based on a provision Section 129(a) in the Prisons Ordinance, which stipulates that a claim on the subjects listed in this section "It shall not be considered as a claim arising from an employee-employer relationship for the purpose of section 24 of the Labor Court Law, 5729-1969" (As noted, a parallel provision is also fixed in the matter of police officers In the section 93A by the police order).

On January 30, 2023, the Labor Court (the Honorable Judge R.  Barag-Hirshberg) issued a partial judgment in which the grounds given to its jurisdiction were defined (hereinafter - the partial judgment).  With regard to the rest of the grounds, the Respondent's position was accepted, and accordingly it was determined that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court for Administrative Affairs, since they are listed in Item 37(2) of the First Addendum to the Courts for Administrative Affairs Law, which deals with the issues listed in section 129 of the Prison Service Ordinance (except for matters relating to the appointment of the Prisons Commissioner).